If ever unions needed busting, these are them. Union goals are not about "the children" or downtrodden $80K/yr teachers. It's about power and money. Unions are a business, just not as ethical or principled or legally constrained as a private enterprise.

If unions ever needed busting, these are them. They are not about "the children or their $80K/yr teacher members. It's about power and money. They're a business like any other, but without the ethics, morals, or legal constraints required of a private enterprise.

I'd be more impressed if that many high school kids turned out on a Saturday afternoon for this righteous cause. And no cheating and throwing a football rally afterwards. Also like the slaves that fought for the Confederacy I am not entirely convinced of their absolute commitment to the cause. On the plus side, they're having a good time and no day in high school that you have a good time is a complete waste.

Haven't seen reporting on the unionist's trash left behind in other reporting and that's a fascinating subject, as is the lack of reporting about the slurs cast on Gov. Walker and the death threats. Will Bill Maher or Chris Matthews comments about those threats?

Activism of the kids? Most have no idea what they're there for. THey're just glad to miss school (their cluelessness mirrors the left's), and seeing the signs written by their teachers, they're probably better off out of the classroom anyway. They can get on the welfare roles when they're adults, anyway.

For you lefties, it's only admirable activism when they agree with you - then the more violent the rhetoric, the better.

I imagine that the media will also be full of admiration for these folks and the violent rhetoric of the protester's signs will be ignored. As will the fact that this is being orchestrated by the DNC and Obama.

But only because our betters in the media are unbiased and only tell us what they decide we need to know. *spit*

I think for myself Anita, unlike you. If you doubt I denounce violent rhetoric, you should see my comments from this afternoon, decrying it.

It's activism because these high school kids HAVE THE DAY OFF and are using to protest. I'm sure there are some that know exactly why they are there, and some that have no idea. Just like every other group/protest/party.

Please Anita, answer one question to this clueless lefty: What is one good reason to include union busting provisions in a "temporary budget bill" after those unions had already negotiated contracts with the state?

You can't answer it. Realizing that - you'll understand why it is a pure partisan move that is obvious all of us "clueless" folks.

If my kid was bussed to a protest by the teachers, then Home-Schooling it is. It is bad enough that the highest local taxes are from the school district. I would mandate that 75 cents of every dollar be spent on the classroom teacher and kids. Fire half of the admin staff. Education is about teaching students,not admin.

"Rhetoric doesn't match the facts, sorry. Really? Because they contribute to Democratic candidates? Perhaps you should review the decision in Citizens United - so lauded by the Republicans."

My father was a federal employee, worked maintenance for the US Fish and Wildlife Dept. The RULES were that he was not allowed to be named a delegate for a political party or other overt political activism.

The principle is simple, so even the simplistic should understand.

Pushing a political platform (what the delegates do) or being directly involved in getting someone elected who THEN HAS CONTROL OVER YOUR EMPLOYMENT means that the politician can coerce your cooperation in his reelection on threat of you losing your job, as well as the other way around.

Citizens United means that unions have the right to participate in paid political speech. That's certainly true. Where it becomes a sincere and weighty problem is when union membership is compelled and dues compelled and citizens are forced to pay for political speech on condition of their employment.

Please Anita, answer one question to this clueless lefty: What is one good reason to include union busting provisions in a "temporary budget bill" after those unions had already negotiated contracts with the state?

I just gave you a detailed explanation, and you've refused to respond.

They HAVE THE DAY(S) OFF because their thuggish, greedy "teachers" feel that their need to stop the democratic process in the state senate superscedes the kid's need of an education. That's why they HAVE THE DAY OFF.

It wasn't like this is a scheduled holiday or anything. It's a GREED day.

The teachers, in a display which is typical of union members, have lied and called in sick. Lied. School is cancelled so these thugs can get their all-important paycheck for those days. From the taxpayers. The taxpayers who's kids they're currently NOT TEACHING.

And the parents of these kids will just have to deal with it, because this is not about the kids, it's not about education, it's about power.

THese thugs are showing up at Rebublican legislator's homes. They have signs quoting John Wilkes Booth and photos of the governor with a gunsight in the middle of his face. This is what teaches Wisconsin's kids.

And it's being orchestrated by the DNC and our president, who also don't care if those kids are in school or not.

It's not activism, it's thuggishness. Thuggishness designed to circumvent the democratic process. To keep the state senate from voting. Collectivists have difficulty dealing with the voting thingy. Which is why the Dems have fled the state. With their collective tails between their legs.

They want the union version of democracy - you'll vote the way THEY tell you to, or there will be blood.

On the plus side, I can guarantee that at least some of these dipshit kids will, in time, realize that they were used as complete tools by the very people they trusted. I was exploited this way myself when I was in public school. I haven't forgotten it.

Hey, Dose of Sanity (sic), do you think these "teachers" are explaining to the kids that they, the kids are going to be in servitude the rest of their lives paying the teachers' lavish unfunded benefit packages? No? Not one single union teacher in the state of Wisconsin saying a word about what the actual numbers are?

Gee. Go figure.

These kids are being used as stage props to sell policies that will screw them brutally. These teachers are lying to their students, deliberately and maliciously, for their own benefit.

You think that's admirable, DoS. A noble lie sort of thing, right? In your mind, education is the business of lying to kids for the benefit of the left, because what's good for the left is good for everybody who matters, by definition. Right?

Honest people don't think that way.

As for busting unions, it is in the interest of union employees to work as little as possible. That is what unions do. They eliminate all incentives to do a good job. They oppose pay for merit. They make it impoossible to fire anybody for incompetence.

Teacher's unions make schools worse and more expensive. That is what they do.

Reason number one to destroy them: Our kids deserve better, and so do we. Our country needs educated kids more than it needs worthless tax-eating parasites halfheartedly posing as educators, while kids "graduate" from high school not knowing how to read.

Reason number two: We just can't afford to pay for it any more. With the connivance of the Democratic party, these parasites are robbing us blind. We can't afford to keep growing government forever. We can't afford to move so many people, and so much wealth, out of the productive economy and into the parasitic pseudo-economy. We are a rich country, but even we have limits to what we can afford.

Third reason: Democrats in power give the teacher's union public funds, which inevitably find their way to the Democrats' campaign funds. It's embezzlement of public funds on a massive scale. They belong in prison.

What is one good reason to include union busting provisions in a "temporary budget bill" after those unions had already negotiated contracts with the state?

I'm not from Wisconsin so I'm just speculating, but maybe the Gov. is representing the will of the people who voted him into office? Maybe a large portion of the tax-payers of Wisconsin want these public sector unions busted? I've heard that elections can have consequences.

It will be put to a vote, (if the Dems decide to grow up and get back on the job). That's how representative govts work. Representatives vote based on the will of their constituents. You win some, you lose some.

Pushing a political platform (what the delegates do) or being directly involved in getting someone elected who THEN HAS CONTROL OVER YOUR EMPLOYMENT means that the politician can coerce your cooperation in his reelection on threat of you losing your job, as well as the other way around.

A decent argument Synova, except that you linked something that isn't linked. The Governor (in theory) has control over the employment of all state employees regardless of the unions. Either way - a state employees job is in the hands of the governor.

It is, in fact, EASIER to coerce employees who are not organized into unions. In fact, that's the whole point of the union. The unions support political speech, as they should, for their members. The democrats are generally more sympathetic to Union interests, so it is right for them to patronize them.

As for the mandatory compulsion to pay dues, I can see how that would be problematic. However, this is necessary to prevent the tragedy of the commons from intervening and weakening the unions. More simply put - workers would receive benefit of the unions regardless of payment. Thus, the individual would have motivation to NOT pay dues. This could cause a collapse of the union even though each worker is better off with the union.

The teachers should be arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

The parents should be reimbursed on their property taxes, per day of work stoppage.

The students should be able to sue the school for exploiting them for politics. The award should be enough to create an object lesson so teachers all over America will quit using students as protest labor.

I'm not from Wisconsin so I'm just speculating, but maybe the Gov. is representing the will of the people who voted him into office? Maybe a large portion of the tax-payers of Wisconsin want these public sector unions busted? I've heard that elections can have consequences.

It will be put to a vote, (if the Dems decide to grow up and get back on the job). That's how representative govts work. Representatives vote based on the will of their constituents. You win some, you lose some.

ou think that's admirable, DoS. A noble lie sort of thing, right? In your mind, education is the business of lying to kids for the benefit of the left, because what's good for the left is good for everybody who matters, by definition. Right?

As for the mandatory compulsion to pay dues, I can see how that would be problematic. However, this is necessary to prevent the tragedy of the commons from intervening and weakening the unions. More simply put - workers would receive benefit of the unions regardless of payment. Thus, the individual would have motivation to NOT pay dues. This could cause a collapse of the union even though each worker is better off with the union.

Here it is laid out. They can't be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to support the union because they might decide wrong.

"As for the mandatory compulsion to pay dues, I can see how that would be problematic. However, this is necessary to prevent the tragedy of the commons from intervening and weakening the unions. More simply put - workers would receive benefit of the unions regardless of payment. Thus, the individual would have motivation to NOT pay dues. This could cause a collapse of the union even though each worker is better off with the union. "

Really?

You are actually arguing that we need to force people to join a political organization against their will because without coercion the group in question would die? And you justify this based on the belief that they need others to negotiate for them?

As a teacher who is probably going to be facing a 5% pay cut (of course they never cut from the top), I have zero sympathy for the teachers in Wisconsin. I understand that we bust our butts in the classroom. I understand that we work outside the classroom grading and lesson planning. I understand that we probably don't get paid enough for what we are asked to do. I have three words for them...

Get. Over. It.

We're on the public dime, we'll never be paid enough. Everyone else has to contribute to their health care and retirement funds, it's called reality. Try living in it for a while.

So you're afraid that your boss can fire you at will? Join the crowd. I spent 20 years in the private sector, that's a fact of life, get used to it. I once got fired because someone got transferred from another location and they needed the desk space. Don't like the idea of your boss making unannounced visits to your classroom? TFB And what gives you the right to break your contract to go protest? WTF? It's not about the kids or you'd be in the class doing your damn job, it's about power and money. At least be honest about it. You can get fired for breach of contract and every one of those teachers who violated their contracts should be fired and their licenses to teach revoked. That's also reality, actions have consequences, you need to practice what you preach to your students, maybe they'll start to believe you when you talk to them about the real world.

In the last three years those of us in the private sector have seem our wages frozen (and in some cases cut), our friends laid off and we're mostly working longer hours to cover for those missing friends. And snivel servants sucking at the public teat are bitching about having to contribute a little to their gold-plated pensions and having to a bit of prep work outside their 6 hour workday? Seriously? How would you like my unmatched 401k instead? It's like you have an economic death wish.

Do you know where sympathy falls in the dictionary?

Somewhere between sh*t and syphilis. Now do your damned jobs or we'll easily find someone who will. 10% unemployment has SOME redeeming features. You're not that good, and everyone can be replaced.

How? You can choose not to join a union. Ah freedom. It's not a secret Reps loathe unions and Dems support unions. This is not a mystery, eh. If you're a conservative don't join a union ~ what a concept!

btw, the NFL owners despise unions, but hey, that's life. You do what you have to do within the law if you are a true believer and sometimes break the law ie personal choice ie many Vietnam War protesters went to jail.

America was born out of civil disobedience and survives despite itself!

YOu can choose in a Right To Work state like Arkansas. My understanding is that Wisconsin is not a right to work state, and so if you are in a union shop you make union dues, like it or not. That's part of what this fight is about.

"Tragedies" of the commons can be beneficial. The price-fixing pools of the Gilded Age kept collapsing because there was no way to keep conspirators from cheating on the agreed price to grab market share.

"It is, in fact, EASIER to coerce employees who are not organized into unions. In fact, that's the whole point of the union."

So anyone who is employed should have a union? Interesting. And your additional comments indicate that they should not only have a union, but should be forced to be a member. Very interesting. I can't wait until the military unionizes. They are government employess, and they have fewer rights than everyone else does.

The teachers unions would do well to remember that there is very little they can offer that can't be had for free on the internet. Schools make a nice place to warehouse kids so both parents can work but there is no need to institutionalize our children from an early age for the sake of education.

Little tantrums like this bunch in WI are throwing will only hasten the realization that the world has changed and the need for their services is less than it has ever been while the costs we are paying are greater than can be sustained.

They have no business being out there. This is a union issue, not a childrens issue.

Also, Unions need no busting. I'm waiting to hear one good reason.

Yes, yes they do. They serve no purpose in the face of private non-union citizens who do not have collective bargaining powers on their side and other 'benefits' that unions provide at a massive cost to the taxpayer. They are a dinosaur that doesn't know it's extinct and no longer necessary. Furthermore, teachers union serve no economic-national strategic benefit outside of propping themselves up and if anything, they have become a gigantic burden to children and to parents. They are not necessary and I defy you to state why they are.